137 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

TMA LIVE wrote...

We only know there's one because a planet got an impacted from a shot. You're saying we should have had more planets take a hit in order to learn there are others? Where's your evidence of that?

To claim there were a number of similar mega-project exceptional weapons when one is instead presented as a last-hurah, we should have any evidence that there were many such mega-projects.

It could be planets. It could be ruins. It could be old, leaky computer logs of races long dead.

But the Klendagon canon was cast as an exceptional artifact, not a commonplace.

[TMA LIVE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

We only know there's one because a planet got an impacted from a shot. You're saying we should have had more planets take a hit in order to learn there are others? Where's your evidence of that?

To claim there were a number of similar mega-project exceptional weapons when one is instead presented as a last-hurah, we should have any evidence that there were many such mega-projects.

It could be planets. It could be ruins. It could be old, leaky computer logs of races long dead.

But the Klendagon canon was cast as an exceptional artifact, not a commonplace.

Again, we already know the Reapers clear everything out, and only leave ruins behind. And do their best to remove any evidence of their existence.

Just because only one planet's been "glanced" by a shot, doesn't mean we'd have to have seen more of those, in order to know there were more.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 26 novembre 2011 - 08:49 .

[TMA LIVE]

onelifecrisis wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

And your theory is that all these other ones, which didn't leave evidence, were all removed while the balatantly obvious one was 'missed.'

Your support for this theory is... none. Your argument for the validation is that Bioware made a plothole. Your demands for a disproof rest on proving a negative.

Not only are you ignorring the responsibility of supporting a claim, you're waving your idea in the face of Occam's Razor.

We only know there's one because a planet got an impacted from a shot. You're saying we should have had more planets take a hit in order to learn there our others? Where's your evidence of that?

No, I think he's saying that if there were many guns but only one left an impact crater then it would make more sense to have the reapers find and destroy that one and none/fewer of the others.

I think your best bet is to argue that the reapers didn't find any of them. After all, we know they didn't find the one that left the impact crater...

I wouldn't believe that, since if there were more, then why did they stop doing their job, and lefted untouched?

[onelifecrisis]

TMA LIVE wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

And your theory is that all these other ones, which didn't leave evidence, were all removed while the balatantly obvious one was 'missed.'

Your support for this theory is... none. Your argument for the validation is that Bioware made a plothole. Your demands for a disproof rest on proving a negative.

Not only are you ignorring the responsibility of supporting a claim, you're waving your idea in the face of Occam's Razor.

We only know there's one because a planet got an impacted from a shot. You're saying we should have had more planets take a hit in order to learn there our others? Where's your evidence of that?

No, I think he's saying that if there were many guns but only one left an impact crater then it would make more sense to have the reapers find and destroy that one and none/fewer of the others.

I think your best bet is to argue that the reapers didn't find any of them. After all, we know they didn't find the one that left the impact crater...

I wouldn't believe that, since if there were more, then why did they stop doing their job, and lefted untouched?

Yeah, good point.

[Dean_the_Young]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Thanks for that explanation. I'd never heard of a white elephant before.

No problem. One of the major delimmas facing the American military today is identifying projects that are actually white elephants. Do we really need a few hundred Raptors for the airforce, when other planes are good enough for air superiority, and drones make better bombers?

Heck, drones are one of those inventions that make a lot of other things white elephants. Drones have made white elephants out of a lot of manned planes and fighter bombers, simply because drones are much cheaper and still able to deliver precision strikes in an insurgency environment.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here, but if one of these guns can take out a reaper, and so can a fleet, then surely the only question is whether the gun "costs" more than a fleet? I put "costs" in inverted commas because there's not just material considerations; for example I imagine that training the crew of an entire fleet takes a lot longer than training the crew of one gun, and there's the cost in lives when the fleet gets wiped out as well.

This is where distributed risk, partial costs, and versatility comes in.

In military terms, it's a Bad Idea when all your assets are at one point that can be ruined. And in engineering terms, it's a Very Bad Idea when an entire system rests upon one component.

A fleet represents a distributed investment. More or less, each indivual part of the fleet can afford to be lost. If you lose have a canon, you have exactly 0% utility of a canon. If you lose have a fleet, you at least have half the strength to still work with. This is not only vital in defense (what if the Reapers launch the first strikes on our canons?), but also in the offense: losses are unavoidable, but distributing them across replacable parts helps with reconsolidation and advance. If two Klendagon Canons both lose half their structure, you have two dud canons. If you lose half of two fleets, you can consolidate them back into a fleet.


Fleets also represent distributed risk. The chance of something, anything, going wrong and ruining a whole fleet is far less than destroyign a single ship. The eggs-in-one-basket risk, if you will. The Reapers only have to get a first-strike on one ship, or indoctrinate one set of crew, to ruin the Klendagon canon. The Reapers have to do a lot more to a lot more targets to get anywhere close to the result on a fleet. This goes back to the first part of a distributed investment as well. Imagine you were fighting Klendagon canons, for example: would you want to face them with a smaller number of Klendagon canons, where every enemy hit means a loss of a fleet? Or would you face them with a fleet, where the Klendagon canon can only take out a fraction of your forces in each strike? Now replace 'Klendagon canon' with 'Sovereign-type dreadnaught.'



Versatility and utility is the real thing. Even if we're really generous with the Klendagon canon surrogate (one Reaper-killing shot every minute), how useful is that against, well, anything other than Reaper dreadnaughts? 

Even if you establish that a fleet and a Klendagon canon have the same effectiveness against Reaper dreadnaughts (which we dispute above, but concede for this particular example), an over-powered weapon can suffer from too-big-to-use. It's not really warranted to use against Reaper cruisers or frigates: they'll just eat up you guns, and then in the next minutes the Reaper dreadnaughts will be called or they'll blitz your Klendagons. A galactic-scale weapon isn't exactly fit for sniping fighters out of the sky. You can't use it for tactical orbital bombarment, because you won't have a planet after you fire it a few times... and you'll kill the friendlies in the area. A single cannon-carrying ship isn't going to have the logistical lift to pick up and carry lots of supplies and resources to win ground battles either.

And, most of all, a Klendagon canon can only be at one place at a time, unable to do those 'small' things. A fleet can break up and do a lot of small things in a lot of different places at the same time.

[Dean_the_Young]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Just because only one planet's been "glanced" by a shot, doesn't mean we'd have to have seen more of those, in order to know there were more.

That's exactly what it means. The only canon Klendagon itself implies or proves is the Klendagon canon. It does not suggest or imply the existence of any others.

In order to know more, you have to have some evidence that there are more.

[TMA LIVE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Hey, if you want to call it a plothole as to why the Reapers couldn't find a Dead Reaper or the defunct weapon that fired it, you can and I have no argument there.

I'm not. In fact, I'm not even the one claiming your theory.

And no, I'd say maybe there could have been others, but they're gone now. With only one got missed. And that's only if the race build more of them.

And your theory is that all these other ones, which didn't leave evidence, were all removed while the balatantly obvious one was 'missed.'

Your support for this theory is... none. Your argument for the validation is that Bioware made a plothole. Your demands for a disproof rest on proving a negative.

Not only are you ignorring the responsibility of supporting a claim, you're waving your idea in the face of Occam's Razor.

So you're saying that a race that not only wipes out entire races as their main occupation, and clears the galaxy out, removing any signs of their involvement, just happened to miss a planet or station that had a mass accelerator weapon, that shot one of their very own dead, who just happened to be completely alone when shot so no one would find his remains? Including the Reapers who didn't give a **** about him? And you don't consider this a plothole?

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 26 novembre 2011 - 09:15 .

[TMA LIVE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Just because only one planet's been "glanced" by a shot, doesn't mean we'd have to have seen more of those, in order to know there were more.

That's exactly what it means. The only canon Klendagon itself implies or proves is the Klendagon canon. It does not suggest or imply the existence of any others.

In order to know more, you have to have some evidence that there are more.

Wait, I think you misunderstand.

http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Klendagon

Klendagon was "shot". It doesn't have a canon.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 26 novembre 2011 - 09:14 .

[111987]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Like I said. If they did destroy it and left it, they considered it useless for whoever found it. And that argument I can buy. They didn't clear out everything, and left things behind like the ruins on Feros.

If they didn't destroy it, and it did destroyed itself, or only had the resources for one shot. In this case, nothing's to say the remains can't be studied to make a new version that won't destroy itself, or one that'll have the resources to fire again, unless it's so old or damaged that nothing can be gained.

The technology already exists, it's just a matter of organic species not needing a gun that big.

For example, modern nukes are generally no more than 20 megatons of force, but if we wanted to, we could have 50, or even 100 megaton nukes (if not more).

[TMA LIVE]

111987 wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Like I said. If they did destroy it and left it, they considered it useless for whoever found it. And that argument I can buy. They didn't clear out everything, and left things behind like the ruins on Feros.

If they didn't destroy it, and it did destroyed itself, or only had the resources for one shot. In this case, nothing's to say the remains can't be studied to make a new version that won't destroy itself, or one that'll have the resources to fire again, unless it's so old or damaged that nothing can be gained.

The technology already exists, it's just a matter of organic species not needing a gun that big.

For example, modern nukes are generally no more than 20 megatons of force, but if we wanted to, we could have 50, or even 100 megaton nukes (if not more).

Then all we need to know is the right kind of fire power needed to shoot one down, and build for it.

If you believe one Reaper can be taken out multiple war ships, then we need something more powerful.

If you're saying we need multiple war ships to take out one ship out of thousands, then we're already screwed. And as the intro to Earth proves, that is the case. And it also means we don't have the fire power of one ship to eliminate one ship, like the Reapers do.

If we did, we'd stand a better chance. But we don't. Researching that defunct weapon could give an answer, if it's not destroyed enough to figure that out. Or studying the shot the Reaper took, to learn what's needed to damaged it.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 26 novembre 2011 - 09:48 .

[Dean_the_Young]

TMA LIVE wrote...

So you're saying that a race that not only wipes out entire races as their main occupation, and clears the galaxy out, removing any signs of their involvement, just happened to miss a planet or station that had a mass accelerator weapon, that shot one of their very own dead, who just happened to be completely alone when shot so no one would find his remains? Including the Reapers who didn't give a **** about him? And you don't consider this a plothole?

If the Reapers really left no sign of their involvement, there wouldn't have been an ME1. The Prothean Beacon established in the first half-hour that the Reapers don't make perfect sweeps. It's the context that makes it matter if something is acceptable, and the Reapers already established that 'known Prothean settlements' could still have Beacons left behind.

Is a canon being blasted systems away by recoil and anything else an acceptable explanation? They lost the Mu Relay, another key part of ME1, as well. So sure: especially if Cerberus got lucky in dark space only thanks to the dedicated research and knowledge of Reapers helping guide and push their search when no other species would have had the same impetus. This galactic cycle also has superior science and technologies past the 'intended' level thanks to the failed trap, so that helps explain why new things are discovered.

Is leaving a Derilect Reaper which does not reveal their plans, is nearly impossible to find without dedicated effort (and sufficient technology) by a species that already knows what they shouldn't, and still has indoctrination active, cycle-ruining?  Especially since the Vanguard can always theoretically call in the invasion if the Organics, after a long list of unlikely things, do somehow start acting wrong? Not really. The only thing the Derilect Reaper really endangered was the Collector Base, and that was pretty irrelevant to the Reaper success or failure. If they couldn't salvage him, and couldn't fix him, leaving him to dream hidden within a gas giant could well fit within their 'culture.'

[Dean_the_Young]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Just because only one planet's been "glanced" by a shot, doesn't mean we'd have to have seen more of those, in order to know there were more.

That's exactly what it means. The only canon Klendagon itself implies or proves is the Klendagon canon. It does not suggest or imply the existence of any others.

In order to know more, you have to have some evidence that there are more.

Wait, I think you misunderstand.

http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Klendagon

Klendagon was "shot". It doesn't have a canon.

Oi vey.

Since the Canon doesn't have any other designated name, the fan-term 'Klendagon Canon' has been used around BSN since the ME2 to refer to the canon that shot Klendagon.

[TMA LIVE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you wanted to be told, you could have asked.

Or you could have made an argument that you believed that the cost of one gun compared to where those costs could go would be better.

Instead, you descided to not even bother making your case, and instead say "I know a term I'm sure you don't know". Don't you realize why you're at risk of getting banned?

And what it means in terms of military-industrial projects, such as war, is something that is uneconomical: not simply in terms of monetary cost, but because it doesn't bring enough relevant benefits to justify the cost.

White Elephants are useful. They just aren't useful enough to justify them, and they detract from more effective expenditures. They are systems where there are cheaper, reliable-enough alternatives that work well enough are superior alternatives.


A good historic example were the super-heavy tanks of WW2. Individually, one-on-one, heavier tanks were better than lighter tanks: they had bigger guns (to make a kill), and more armor (to resist a kill). But the tank campaigns were won with mobility by light and medium tanks of numbers, not quality: even super-heavy tanks could be knocked out by tactics, infantry, or airpower. Did this mean super-heavy tanks weren't useful weapons? No. But they weren't effective weapons.

The more comparative example would be naval warfare. Dreadnaughts and battleships were some of the biggest, baddest, most damaging machines ever put to sea. They were also largely irrelevant: it was submarines, destroyers, cruisers, and aircraft carriers that were the deciders of battles and campaigns. Battleships served as glorified artillery platforms, not the battle-winning vessels they were intended to be.


To be useful does not mean to be effective. White Elephants are the big, costly projects where the resources could be better spent elsewhere.

And I don't see how we'd know that such a weapon counts as one. Again, if it's money or resources, if it's life or death, I don't think you'll be getting people going on strike when it comes to the Reapers. Now if it's about time, like gathering those resources and putting them together, you might have a point. But we don't know the time it'd take to make one or the expenses. It could take a month to build just one. It could take a year. Nothing says which.

If 10 or 20 can be built within a year, while still having a strong fleet of ships, I don't see that as a burden. Anything can be use well as long as it's used correctly, nor relied on. If I had to trade canons for more ships, looking at the Reapers, I'd ask "Which is going to get me results? The ships that get blasted apart like nothing, or the canons that at least kill reapers?"

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 26 novembre 2011 - 09:53 .

[TMA LIVE]

The prothean beacon was made after the Reapers lefted. That's why it was there.

[Dean_the_Young]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If you wanted to be told, you could have asked.

Or you could have made an argument that you believed that the cost of one gun compared to where those costs could go would be better.

I did. I called the Klendagon Canon a White Elephant project.

Instead, you descided to not even bother making your case, and instead say "I know a term I'm sure you don't know". Don't you realize why you're at risk of getting banned?

And since when was I at risk at getting banned?

You didn't know how the phrase was used, demonstrated by you using it incorrectly repeatedly. You didn't express any interest in learning how it was used either.

I could paternalize you by spelling it out for you, or I could let you figure itself out for yourself by looking it up (which you eventually did), or letting you ask for clarification (which you did not).

And I don't see how we'd know that such a weapon counts as one. Again, if it's money or resources, if it's life or death, I don't think you'll be getting people going on strike when it comes to the Reapers.

If it's time and money and resources that can be better spent on other things...

We don't have the money or time or resources to build thousands of mega-projects.

Now if it's about time, like gathering those resources and putting them together, you might have a point. But we don't know the time it'd take to make one or the expenses. It could take a month to build just one. It could take a year. Nothing says which.

Other comparisons, and traditional logistics, give guidlines. The time to build ships, the cost of ships relative to other ships.

A system which has the mass effect core to blast apart planets isn't going to build at the same rate as dreadnaughts.

If 10 or 20 can be built within a year, while still having a strong fleet of ships, I don't see that as a burden. If I had to trade canons for more ships, looking at the Reapers, I'd ask "Which is going to get me results? The ships that get blasted apart like nothing, or the canons that at least kill reapers?"

The ships kill Reapers as well. They''re also easier to replace, easier to make, less devastating to lose, can do more things as well, The infrastructure is already there to be expanded, the experienced personnel present.

Meanwhile, the canons can ALSO be blasted apart by Reapers.

[Dean_the_Young]

TMA LIVE wrote...

The prothean beacon was made after the Reapers lefted. That's why it was there.

No, they weren't.  The Protheans of Ilos broadcast the beacon message to any potential surviving beacons, then went onto the Citadel. They didn't tour the galaxy to drop off beacons.

[TMA LIVE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Just because only one planet's been "glanced" by a shot, doesn't mean we'd have to have seen more of those, in order to know there were more.

That's exactly what it means. The only canon Klendagon itself implies or proves is the Klendagon canon. It does not suggest or imply the existence of any others.

In order to know more, you have to have some evidence that there are more.

Wait, I think you misunderstand.

http://masseffect.wi.../wiki/Klendagon

Klendagon was "shot". It doesn't have a canon.

Oi vey.

Since the Canon doesn't have any other designated name, the fan-term 'Klendagon Canon' has been used around BSN since the ME2 to refer to the canon that shot Klendagon.

But you still talk as if the "canon being blasted systems away by recoil". Implying that you believe the glancing was simply the canon shot off the planet?

Because even TIM says it as just a hit taken when aimed at the Reaper.

[TMA LIVE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

The prothean beacon was made after the Reapers lefted. That's why it was there.

No, they weren't.  The Protheans of Ilos broadcast the beacon message to any potential surviving beacons, then went onto the Citadel. They didn't tour the galaxy to drop off beacons.

And did this after the Reapers left.

[Dean_the_Young]

TMA LIVE wrote...

But you still talk as if the "canon being blasted systems away by recoil". Implying that you believe the glancing was simply the canon shot off the planet?

No, it does not imply anything about from where the canon was shot.

The canon could have been fired in system, or from a system a few stars away, or from Dark Space.

Because even TIM says it as just a hit taken when aimed at the Reaper.

Which has never been disputed.

[Dean_the_Young]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

The prothean beacon was made after the Reapers lefted. That's why it was there.

No, they weren't.  The Protheans of Ilos broadcast the beacon message to any potential surviving beacons, then went onto the Citadel. They didn't tour the galaxy to drop off beacons.

And did this after the Reapers left.

Very good!

[TMA LIVE]

I did. I called the Klendagon Canon a White Elephant project.

But didn't explain why, until later. Instead you said, "I'm fairly sure you don't understand the concept of a 'white elephant' project."

And then in another "Now I know you don't understand the concept of a White Elephant project, especially in terms of warfare. Or the economies of war.

You're probably the sort of strategy player who builds super-heavy tanks only."

Clearly insulting instead of explaining why you believe it's a white elephant.

And yet you didn't even know what version of the term I was using. And instead, insulted me again.

And considering you're known to have gone into support threads to insult characters, or telling forum members you can take them, do you honestly think you're not under the gun?

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 26 novembre 2011 - 10:21 .

[TMA LIVE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

The prothean beacon was made after the Reapers lefted. That's why it was there.

No, they weren't.  The Protheans of Ilos broadcast the beacon message to any potential surviving beacons, then went onto the Citadel. They didn't tour the galaxy to drop off beacons.

And did this after the Reapers left.

Very good!

Which means the Reapers didn't just miss the message. Thanks for agree with that.

[Dean_the_Young]

TMA LIVE wrote...

I did. I called the Klendagon Canon a White Elephant project.

But didn't explain why, until later.

It's inherent in the definition of what a White Elephant project is.

Likewise, when you call an object blue it's inherent that it's shade is that color between green and purple. It's a key part of the working definition.

Instead you said, "I'm fairly sure you don't understand the concept of a 'white elephant' project."

And then in another "Now I know you don't understand the concept of a White Elephant project, especially in terms of warfare. Or the economies of war.

You're probably the sort of strategy player who builds super-heavy tanks only."

Clearly insulting instead of explaining why you believe it's a white elephant.

No, it wasn't an insult unless you choose to presume it as such. At first I speculated you didn't know, and then you proved it.

And considering you're known to have gone into support threads to insult characters, or telling forum members you can take them, do you honestly think you're not under the gun?

Given I haven't done either of those, no. I don't make physical threats, or physical challenges, to anyone here. I don't go to character threads to insult* the characters either.

*Unless you consider pointing out character flaws insults in a character discussion thread.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. You've certainly confused yourself for a moderator.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 26 novembre 2011 - 10:43 .

[TMA LIVE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If it's time and money and resources that can be better spent on other things...

We don't have the money or time or resources to build thousands of mega-projects.

Says who? You're telling me the Turians can't do one thing, while the Asari and Salarians do another projects? Again, there's nothing to claim this is a mega project, when we don't even know if it is too expensive.

And what better things? More ships? Because the Alliance fleet didn't save Earth.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Other comparisons, and traditional logistics, give guidlines. The time to build ships, the cost of ships relative to other ships.

A system which has the mass effect core to blast apart planets isn't going to build at the same rate as dreadnaughts.

You're comparing giant ship costs to a large gun. It's not the same.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The ships kill Reapers as well. They''re also easier to replace, easier to make, less devastating to lose, can do more things as well, The infrastructure is already there to be expanded, the experienced personnel present.

Meanwhile, the canons can ALSO be blasted apart by Reapers.

Lots of ships destroyed over one Reaper. Lots of ships can't be easily replaced since you need to replace them with lots of replaceable people. Nor can lots of war ships can be built faster then a canon, when they're being blasted away within seconds. If anything, more stuff means more time needed to replace them.

A canon would require a Reaper fleet to go through a fleet of ships just to get attacked.

I just don't understand why you think one canon is all that can be made, nor that I'm implying that this is all that is needed.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 26 novembre 2011 - 11:02 .

[TMA LIVE]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

I did. I called the Klendagon Canon a White Elephant project.

But didn't explain why, until later.

It's inherent in the definition of what a White Elephant project is.

Likewise, when you call an object blue it's inherent that it's shade is that color between green and purple. It's a key part of the working definition.

Instead you said, "I'm fairly sure you don't understand the concept of a 'white elephant' project."

And then in another "Now I know you don't understand the concept of a White Elephant project, especially in terms of warfare. Or the economies of war.

You're probably the sort of strategy player who builds super-heavy tanks only."

Clearly insulting instead of explaining why you believe it's a white elephant.

No, it wasn't an insult unless you choose to presume it as such. At first I speculated you didn't know, and then you proved it.

And considering you're known to have gone into support threads to insult characters, or telling forum members you can take them, do you honestly think you're not under the gun?

Given I haven't done either of those, no. I don't make physical threats, or physical challenges, to anyone here. I don't go to character threads to insult* the characters either.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. You've certainly confused yourself for a moderator.

Insults again.